Posts: 52653
Threads: 567
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 6:54 pm
Quote:Not all people who believe the the biblical story of creation believe in a young earth. Much controversy revolves around the use of the Hebrew word "yom" in the creation account. The Hebrew language had many fewer words than modern day languages and words had multiple meanings. Yom has several meanings, one of which was a 24-hour day. Some other meanings were a point of time or a general vague time, and some others definitions. If yom here means a general vague time, it would allow for an old earth interpretation. Although many creationists do believe in a young earth, many also believe in an old earth.
I don't see that ANY of this matters. Creationists, whether young Earth or old Earth are uniformly united by their rejection of science. The universe is close to 14 billion years old because the evidence points that way, and it is the only explanation that fits with the observed facts. The universe is NOT 14 billion years old because linguists can't agree on a definition of 'yom'.
Creationists of all stripes reject biological evolution - this is what makes them creationists in the first place. They complacently, fatuously ignore (literally) mountains of evidence that all life on this planet had a common ancestor, and that biological diversity is the result of descent with modification.
A YEC says the Earth is less than 10 000 years old, and that God created this planet in essentially the form we see around us. An OEC says the Earth is 4.54 billion years old and that God created this planet in essentially the form we see around us. Wrong is wrong, and spatting over the meaning of a Hebrew word changes nothing.
This is the 21st century, for fuck's sake. There is no excuse - none - for this kind of deliberate, willful ignorance.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
155
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 7:01 pm
Thing is, as well, even if the Old Earth Creationists happen to be more accurate than the Young Earthers, or at least less inaccurate, they're being so for completely accidental reasons.
The YECs, though, are simply 180° at odds with reality on all counts.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 3523
Threads: 31
Joined: December 14, 2013
Reputation:
20
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 7:47 pm
I believe most old earth creationists don't think that the earth was created just as it is now, but rather that God created life progressively over time. This allows for micro evolution within species, but not for macro or cross-species evolution. I'm no scientist. but it appears from the fossil record found in the earth's layers, new species seemed to arrive in bursts, rather that gradually over long timespans. It doesn't matter to me all that much if the current theory of evolution is correct or not. I'm bothered by the lack of undisputed cross-species fossils. But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.
Posts: 1946
Threads: 17
Joined: February 6, 2014
Reputation:
18
Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 7:52 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm by Rampant.A.I..)
Posts: 52653
Threads: 567
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm
Quote:But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.
And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.
In other words, Creationists.
Boru
‘I can’t be having with this.’ - Esmeralda Weatherwax
Posts: 1946
Threads: 17
Joined: February 6, 2014
Reputation:
18
Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 7:55 pm
I'd be happy with a definition of cross species evolution.
![[Image: u3yje8yq.jpg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=img.tapatalk.com%2Fd%2F14%2F02%2F18%2Fu3yje8yq.jpg)
Posts: 3523
Threads: 31
Joined: December 14, 2013
Reputation:
20
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm
(February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Quote:But God could have used any method he wanted to create the universe and life on earth.
And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.
In other words, Creationists.
Boru
What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.
2 - The universe always existed.
3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?
Posts: 736
Threads: 38
Joined: December 3, 2013
Reputation:
10
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 8:11 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2014 at 8:12 pm by FreeTony.)
(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote: What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.
2 - The universe always existed.
3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?
3
Posts: 15352
Threads: 119
Joined: January 13, 2014
Reputation:
116
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 8:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2014 at 8:26 pm by SteelCurtain.)
Posts: 117
Threads: 2
Joined: October 20, 2013
Reputation:
3
RE: Questioning Darwin
February 17, 2014 at 8:30 pm
(This post was last modified: February 17, 2014 at 8:35 pm by MitchBenn.)
(February 17, 2014 at 8:05 pm)Lek Wrote: (February 17, 2014 at 7:53 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: And that's precisely what happens when people switch off their brains and go with Goddiditism - you get mouth-breathing knuckle-draggers who couldn't spot a scientific paradigm if they were in the middle of a herd of scientific paradigms, covered in scientific paradigm musk at the height of the scientific paradigm mating season and doing the scientific paradigm mating dance.
In other words, Creationists.
Boru
What's sillier?
1 - There was nothing there and then was something there.
2 - The universe always existed.
3 - God, who always existed, created the universe?
3.
As Dawkins points out, the perpetual existence or spontaneous self-generation of a mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe might seem implausible, but by definition the perpetual existence or spontaneous self-generation of a a being of such mind-MELTING complexity that it's capable of willing a mind-bogglingly vast and complex universe into being must be far MORE implausible.
|
